Dismissed

Golusula Peddulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Dec 2023WP/22169/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a landless person seeking declaration of revenue authorities' interference as illegal. Court directed respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents authorities not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without following due process of law.

Golusula Peddulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t³³⁰³ l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEI/IBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 22169 OF 2009

¶8

Between:

¶9

Golusula Peddulu, S/o. G.Kondaiah, aged 75 years, Occ: Agriculture, Rl/o. Thonda Village, Tirumalagiri Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶10

.,.PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabd.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Tirumalagiri, Nalgonda District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in interfering with petitioner peaceful possession of the land admeasuring 3 acres in survey No.455/vu of Thonda Vilage, Tirumalgiri mandal, Nalgonda District, as illegal, arbitrary and u nconstitutiona I and consequently direct the respondents authorities not to interfere with petitioner possession over the schedule land.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP. NO: 28778 OF 2009)

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased issue interim direction to the respondent authorities not to interfere with petitioenr peaceful possession of the land admeasuring 3 acres in survey No.455/vu of Thonda Village, Tirumalagiri Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRMVEK JAIN

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.22169 OF 2OO9

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition is hled under Article 226 of tbe Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶26

"...-.to issue a Wit, Order or directton more parttcularlg one tn the nature of Wit of rnand.amus, declaing the action of the respottdent authoities in tnterJeing with petitioner peaceful possession of the land admeasuing 3 acres in surueg No.455/uu of Thonda Village, Tirumalgti Mandal, Nalgonda Distict as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequentlA direct the responclents authoittes not to interkre with petitioner possession ouer the scledule land."

¶27

Heard Smt N.Sunitha, learned counsel representing Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petiti()ner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 al:d 2.

¶28

l,earned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the landless poor person and respon(lent No.2 after following due procedure as contemplated trnder the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2O2O (Act 9 of 2O2O) granted assignment

¶29

)

¶30

patta to an extent of 3 acres in Sy.No.455/vu of Thonda Village, Tirumalagiri Mandal, Naigonda District (presently Suryapet District) and petitioner's name was mutated in the ievenue record and issued pattadar pass book and title deed. Since then petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the said property with absolute rights. Respondent No.2 issued impugned notice dated 29.Ol.2OOB alleging that the petitioner contravened the provisions of sub section 2 ol section ol the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition on Transfer) Act, 7977. Pursuant to the same, petitioner submitted an explanation on 13.02.2008 requesting respondent No.2 to drop the proceedings. Inpsite of the sarne, respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property: At this stage, petitioner approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition.

¶31

After perusal of the record, it reveals that on 15.10.2009, while this Court admitting the case granted interim order in W.P.M.P.No.2a778 of 2OO9, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of

¶32

the petitioner over the subject property without following due process ol law and the same is continuing till date

¶33

It appears from the record that the official respondents have not hled counter aflidavit till date.

¶34

Learned Assistant Government Pleader appeadng for respondents submits that respondents will follow the due process of law.

¶35

In view of the above submissions, without. going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without following due process of law.

¶36

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs

¶37

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

//TRUE^COPY//

sD/- N. cHfllDffi i=-tBr$mR

¶42

..9/

¶43

SECTION^OFFICER

¶44

Secretariat,^{State of AndhraPradesh'}

¶45

To, 1. The Secretary Revenue Department'

¶46

the State^{of Telanganaat}

¶47

ii'["r::sj:#]iw,t1flt$f"..:;:,.:iPj;ri3l,^,", Hvderabad. [OUTI

¶48

1. Trfuo^{CD CoPies'}

¶49

6 BSK l:-lo

-r;-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0811212023

rA1-E o A
'a
..I
a I t$-\ dC)), illlil
<br>,) ,/
t 5tr-"

¶56

ORDER

¶57

WP.No.22169 of 2009

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @f** u 23

Golusula Peddulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golusula Peddulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Patchineelam Muni Kevasa Rao Vs The Sub Collector, Bhadrachalam,Khammam District

Shaik Khaja Muniwar Begum, Vs The District Collector

S. Rajender Singh, Vs Ms. Smitha Sabarwal

Kasoju Madhu Sudhana CHARY,CHANDUBHATLA[POSTANDV],MHBBNGR,AND3 Vs the District Collector, R. R. Dist., Lakdikapool,Hyd., and 5OT

Nandala Srinivas Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Chandra kumar H.Shah Vs K.Chandrakala